IHE: Foreign Language Enrollment Declines 16% Since 2016

[Wahoo Redux]

One of the things one learns from studying a non-native language is the grammar and structure of language.  We've found that trying to teach grammar rules to native-English speakers is very ineffective when taught in English; somehow we don't process these rules in a manner that we find useful when we read or write if it is in our birth language.  Studying a FL shows us how language actually works in that given language.

It is also just great for the brain.

Now, while training in a FL may help stave off dementia when we are older (all those new neurons), a FL may not help you get a job in business, so I don't know if that is enough ROI to justify learning one.

[Hibush]

A fair topic for research would be to find out how required classes in a foreign language actually pay off for students ten and twenty years later.

In order to meet my foreign-language requirement, I took a semester of Russian. That experience did not get me anywhere close to fluency, so by that metric is was a complete waste of time. For example, we did not learn how to count to ten, or even five, because the associated grammar is too difficult.

But it was useful!

I learned the Cyrillic letter and quite a few pronunciation rules. As a consequence, I can still sound out words that appear in photographs. Some are homophones of other languages, so I can guess what is in the picture.

I also remember a little vocabulary. That vocabulary has been handy lately by making it easier to parse the long place names in Ukraine. Often the first bit is "New" or "Old".

My mouth can still make some of the distinctive Russian sounds, so I don't sound like a caricature if I say Russian names or words while speaking English.

So even with decades-old remnants of this class, I have direct benefits in everyday life.

At the time, during the Breshnev genrontocracy, the class instructor also provided insight into Soviet life that was not available in US media. As a broadening experience it also helped.

The course did not have that much about Russian culture. The main thing the instructor had learned on visits to the USSR was not to try to keep up when drinking vodka, which was a lot of the time.

[spork]

Undergrads need to earn 120 credits to get a bachelor's degree, which forces them to pay for courses they don't want to take. You might only want HBO, but, at least in the pre-streaming era, you couldn't get it without buying a bundle of a hundred other channels that you had no interest in watching. Purported benefits of foreign language study are not a reason that foreign language requirements exist in college curricula.

[Wahoo Redux]

Undergrads need to earn 120 credits to get a bachelor's degree, which forces them to pay for courses they don't want to take. You might only want HBO, but, at least in the pre-streaming era, you couldn't get it without buying a bundle of a hundred other channels that you had no interest in watching. Purported benefits of foreign language study are not a reason that foreign language requirements exist in college curricula.

So, should we reduce college to only "classes that students want to take"----i.e. "job training?"

Honest question.

[Hibush]

So, should we reduce college to only "classes that students want to take"----i.e. "job training?"

Honest question.

It depends entirely on what the student wants of college.

Ideally, students come in wanting a particular kind of education and then trust the curriculum designers and advisors to have them take a valuable and well-justified set of courses that provides the associated education. I think a lot of majors are set up along that model.

The disconnect comes when the curriculum or advisor is at odds with what the student is after.

Students who actually want a low-effort credential are going to have that problem at any school that is serious about education. There are schools who serve them for the right price, though.

Students who want a path to economic security and are willing to work for it are an important part of the national student body. Often they have time and financial obligations that make breadth requirements a big burden for little return. A lot of schools are really quite good at serving this group, and play an important role in society. The graduates may not be as well rounded as one would hope for them, they are stable and can have a much better life than if they had taken an entry-level job with no upward path out of high school.

Fortunately there are quite a few students have rather clear career goals that must be served, but they are also interested in broadening their view. Those, and only those, will do well in programs that have breadth requirements.

There are a few schools that are trying to maintain a fully classical education in the model that served the upper class of the 19th century. That's not a big part of the higher-ed market, so I don't find it a useful reference. A variant of this serves a student that loves to learn but is fairly directionless. Employment outcomes are not a factor. Back in the day, such students might hope to marry well. Do any schools still organize around that principle?

[Wahoo Redux]

Okay...that's a good analysis, it seems to me. 

But should we reduce what we offer to just those classes students want to take, which would be classes related exclusively to career outcomes and ROI?

I assume the Ivies and other elites will always offer the lib arts breadth, and maybe a few SLACs here and there, for the minority of intellectuals in any generation----but the rest of the students just want to make their lives better through career options.

What if we reduced college to the two or three years of classes most students want from their career oriented majors?   

[Hegemony]

What if we reduced college to the two or three years of classes most students want from their career oriented majors?   

Heck, why not do that in high school too? Without literature and history and all that non-career-related stuff, they could get sufficient job training that might mean they could cut some years off their college-level job training.

[Wahoo Redux]

What if we reduced college to the two or three years of classes most students want from their career oriented majors?   

Heck, why not do that in high school too? Without literature and history and all that non-career-related stuff, they could get sufficient job training that might mean they could cut some years off their college-level job training.

Agreed.

But is this what we should do?  Should our education be job training?  Repeatedly, this is the context that education at all levels in our society is thrown into.  We might not even need higher education except for professors (not necessarily K-12 teachers) who will teach the engineers, doctors, biologists and the like, and the paucity of foreign language specialists needed now and again.  Business practices could be taught in high school.  I think journalism could be too.  Computer coding too.  What else could be taught in high school and eliminate the need for most higher ed?  We could leave the arts to private life and music conservatories where perhaps they would belong.  People would really, really miss college sports----so maybe we could keep a version of these somehow.

Seriously, why wouldn't we do this?  Imagine the money we would could save. 

It is very interesting that no one answers this question directly.

[lightning]

Okay...that's a good analysis, it seems to me. 

But should we reduce what we offer to just those classes students want to take, which would be classes related exclusively to career outcomes and ROI?

I assume the Ivies and other elites will always offer the lib arts breadth, and maybe a few SLACs here and there, for the minority of intellectuals in any generation----but the rest of the students just want to make their lives better through career options.

What if we reduced college to the two or three years of classes most students want from their career oriented majors? 

Classes related to true career outcomes and ROI are hard classes. What students really want are easy & fun classes and easy & fun curricula that lead directly to a good job upon completion. Of course, these don't really exist.

[Wahoo Redux]

Okay...that's a good analysis, it seems to me. 

But should we reduce what we offer to just those classes students want to take, which would be classes related exclusively to career outcomes and ROI?

I assume the Ivies and other elites will always offer the lib arts breadth, and maybe a few SLACs here and there, for the minority of intellectuals in any generation----but the rest of the students just want to make their lives better through career options.

What if we reduced college to the two or three years of classes most students want from their career oriented majors? 

Classes related to true career outcomes and ROI are hard classes. What students really want are easy & fun classes and easy & fun curricula that lead directly to a good job upon completion. Of course, these don't really exist.

Sooooooo...should we eliminate all these classes not directly related to job placement?

[lightning]

Okay...that's a good analysis, it seems to me. 

But should we reduce what we offer to just those classes students want to take, which would be classes related exclusively to career outcomes and ROI?

I assume the Ivies and other elites will always offer the lib arts breadth, and maybe a few SLACs here and there, for the minority of intellectuals in any generation----but the rest of the students just want to make their lives better through career options.

What if we reduced college to the two or three years of classes most students want from their career oriented majors? 

Classes related to true career outcomes and ROI are hard classes. What students really want are easy & fun classes and easy & fun curricula that lead directly to a good job upon completion. Of course, these don't really exist.

Sooooooo...should we eliminate all these classes not directly related to job placement?

The students who take "job placement" courses are deluding themselves. They don't really directly lead to job placement.

[marshwiggle]

What if we reduced college to the two or three years of classes most students want from their career oriented majors?   

Heck, why not do that in high school too? Without literature and history and all that non-career-related stuff, they could get sufficient job training that might mean they could cut some years off their college-level job training.

Agreed.

But is this what we should do?  Should our education be job training?  Repeatedly, this is the context that education at all levels in our society is thrown into. 

The distinction I would make between high school and PSE is based on the fact that high school is universal, free, and compulsory.  PSE is optional and requires the student to pay some portion of it. So, high school should cover all of the education that society deems necessary for everyone who is intellectually able. PSE, on the other hand, should be structured around the aspirations of specific individuals. Hibush did a good job of giving examples of several of the different types of student aspirations.

Therefore, anything that we feel "everyone" should have should, by definition, be covered in high school. Restrictions on what students take in PSE should be based primarily on the judgement of program designers who have more knowledge than students about what specifically is needed for them to achieve their stated aspirations. So, for instance, lots of programs have math requirements because students will need the math to succeed in those programs, whether they would have preferred to take the math otherwise.


 

[Hibush]

What students really want are easy & fun classes and easy & fun curricula that lead directly to a good job upon completion. Of course, these don't really exist.

I suspect this mismatch applies to a fair number of students. Selling delusion has a long history, but accreditation is designed primarily to identify schools that are not selling delusion. Has the market for education and edutainment changed enough that accreditors need to tighten up the marketing and advising rules?  "You'll have a great time, but don't expect to be hired because of what you did at our college." "You'll have a great time. Your career prospects will be determined by your frat brothers, not the classes."

I listed some different types of intents above. I think it is important that the accreditors and funders use the relevant metrics for the class of student goals. For instance, a lot of students seeking a lower-cost four-year degree do the first two years at a community college, but don't need to collect the associates degree when they tranfer. Using graduation rate is an unfair metric for the community college. Using graduation plus transfer is a lot more accurate. Skipping such nuance is really harmful. Of course, providing such nuance provides opportunity for gaming the system.

[Hibush]

What students really want are easy & fun classes and easy & fun curricula that lead directly to a good job upon completion. Of course, these don't really exist.

I suspect this mismatch applies to a fair number of students. Selling delusion has a long history, but I'd argue that the whole accreditation businness is designed primarily to identify schools that are not selling delusion. Has the market for education and edutainment changed enough that accreditors need to tighten up the marketing and advising rules?  "You'll have a great time, but don't expect to be hired because of what you did at our college." "You'll have a great time. Your career prospects will be determined by your frat brothers, not the classes."

I listed some different types of intents above. I think it is important that the accreditors and funders use the relevant metrics for the class of student goals. For instance, a lot of students seeking a lower-cost four-year degree do the first two years at a community college, but don't need to collect the associates degree when they tranfer. Using graduation rate is an unfair metric for the community college. Using graduation plus transfer is a lot more accurate. Skipping such nuance is really harmful. Of course, providing such nuance provides opportunity for gaming the system.

Okay...that's a good analysis, it seems to me. 

But should we reduce what we offer to just those classes students want to take, which would be classes related exclusively to career outcomes and ROI?

I assume the Ivies and other elites will always offer the lib arts breadth, and maybe a few SLACs here and there, for the minority of intellectuals in any generation----but the rest of the students just want to make their lives better through career options.

What if we reduced college to the two or three years of classes most students want from their career oriented majors?   

Okay...that's a good analysis, it seems to me. 

But should we reduce what we offer to just those classes students want to take, which would be classes related exclusively to career outcomes and ROI?

I assume the Ivies and other elites will always offer the lib arts breadth, and maybe a few SLACs here and there, for the minority of intellectuals in any generation----but the rest of the students just want to make their lives better through career options.

What if we reduced college to the two or three years of classes most students want from their career oriented majors?   

This brings up several distinctions that are important.
First is to serve the outcome that students want, and provide the appropriate components. That is very different from providing the classes students want when those don't lead to the outcome students want.

Second, many students want to take classes beyond immediate utility. I don't believe the exclusivity is common outside of super-focused programs. The challenge is to make one's own class be among those that students want. It means thinking about the student pool that is available and building offerings that fit. MIT has some of the best arts and humanities programs despite a student body of hard-core engineers. How do those faculty design popular courses?

Even in the Ivies, undergraduate students can take a largely humanities-free course of study if they want. But I agree that those who want a challenging comprehensive education will always be able to find one at that kind of school.

Could we do two or three year programs? We do. Community colleges offer lots of career-focused two-year programs. The model works very well. For more advanced material with a third year, but short of a bachelor's degree, certificates have really proliferated. My school has a ton of them, so they have apparently found a solid niche in the higher-ed world. Certificates are typically based on four to six courses that are taught separate from the undergrad courses, often online. Anyone can sign up (and pay), but they don't give breaks for those who are unprepared to take on the level of material or the effort required to keep up. Some of those certificates end up being in the breadth courses that people skipped as undergrads but want to catch up on in mid-career.

[spork]

[. . .]

accreditation is designed primarily to identify schools that are not selling delusion.

[. . .]

This will come as a surprise to most business departments, the male equivalents of education departments, which are also delusional.

[. . .]

MIT has some of the best arts and humanities programs despite a student body of hard-core engineers. How do those faculty design popular courses?

[. . . ]

They are teaching to an atypical audience that is intrinsically motivated to learn and highly curious about wildly different endeavors. Diverse outcomes among my engineering and science roommates include Zen monk, music conservatory graduate, farmer, and commercial airline pilot. Harvard is quite different.

Anyone can sign up (and pay), but they don't give breaks for those who are unprepared to take on the level of material or the effort required to keep up. Some of those certificates end up being in the breadth courses that people skipped as undergrads but want to catch up on in mid-career.

This discussion is very U.S.-centric. EU-UK higher ed doesn't have nearly as much "check these meaningless boxes by taking courses you have no interest in" curricular content as four-year U.S. baccalaureate programs do. And in the U.S., a two-year community college dental hygienist program has a far better ROI than many of those baccalaureate programs.

The typical two-semester introductory-level foreign language requirement at U.S. universities teaches undergrads to hate the study of foreign languages. That's it.